Hello again and welcome to another edition of Hittin’ the Links. We are back after a week off and a very entertaining Masters. It’s about time the people at Augusta National set up the golf course to allow for some scoring. I was so happy to hear those roars coming from off in the distance as players again made birdies and eagles in an attempt to chase down the leaders. It was like the Masters of old.
In this most recent volume of HTL, we first take a look at some stories coming out of Augusta, turn our attention to John Daly, and then look at who are the recent inductees into the Golf Hall of Fame. Also, we look into the Tiger, TV ratings connection, see who took their last swings at Augusta, and investigate the Rory McIlroy bunker shot uproar. Read on!
Hole 1: The Masters
Angel Cabrera takes home a green jacket after a little overtime at Augusta National. [Link]
Hole 2: Perry Looks Back
After giving away the Masters with two late bogeys, Kenny Perry looks back at the past week. [Link]
Hole 3: Daly at The Masters?
John Daly set up shop across the street from Augusts National to peddle his wares. [Link]
Hole 4: Fuzzy Says Goodbye
Crowd favorite Fuzzy Zoeller has played his final round at The Masters. [Link]
Hole 5: Farewell to the Black Knight
After 52 years, Gary Players calls it quits at The Masters. [Link]
Hole 6: Hall of Fame
José Maria Olazabal and Lanny Watkins are being being inducted into the World Golf Hall of Fame for 2009. [Link]
Hole 7: Tiger Woods Equals Viewers
Tiger Woods’ dramatic Victory at Bay Hill drew the largest television ratings since, well, Tiger’s last victory at the U.S. Open. [Link]
Hole 8: Best Not to Play in the Sand, Youngster
Rory Mcilroy’s action in the bunker on Friday nearly cost him his weekend at the Masters. [Link]
Hole 9: Commissioner Rice?
Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is looking at taking a job on the PGA Tour. [Link]
Like most people, probably, I was pulling for either Tiger or Phil to win. I think this is a year where we need star power in the majors; a great year by either Tiger or Phil would be good for golf in what is otherwise going to be a down year for sports and the economy in general.
I’ve never been a big fan of Kenny Perry, and I was sort of rooting against him early in the round, hoping Tiger and Phil would catch him. But it was sad seeing him unravel at the end. When he hit the shot on 16, I thought the tournament was over, even though my friend told me “17 and 18 are tough driving holes for Perry.” Talk about clairvoyance.
Chad Campbell–not that anyone who can play and win on the PGA Tour can be considered a “bad” golfer, but my impression of Chad Campbell has always been that he’s nothing more than a journeyman, and as such I didn’t like the idea of him winning. I felt bad for him when he hit the lousy approach on the first playoff hole. You figure a pro golfer with a 7 or 8 iron in his hands should be able to hit a green, but that just shows you how intense the pressure is. He played great.
When the playoff started, I told my friend “Cabrera will win. He’s the toughest of the 3.” So when he drove it in the trees, I felt pretty stupid. But his ability to sink that putt to stay alive showed he was, definitely, the toughest of those three.
Hats off to a great tournament and a worthy champion. Augusta got it just right this week, I think. Kept the greens a titch slower than what we’re used to, so that shots held better, and there were fewer silly roll-offs. And the “second cut” was noticeably wider this year than last, and I think a bit less lengthy. If they will continue eliminating the needless trees, the Masters should be back to being the most exciting major championship in a year or so.
I meant “the fairways were noticeably wider, and the second cut less lengthy….” etc….
Interesting story about Rice. Her interest in golf is genuine, I saw her at The Greenbrier a couple years ago, while still in office, going out to play a round with what looked like a couple of SS agents on an obvious late summer quiet vacation. Don’t know what she could do, but she is a smart and classy lady.
I think Augusta Nation is now set up perfectly. I beleive the scoring for The Master should be within 3 strokes of -10 for 72 holes. If weather did play a part as it did in years past the, I think we would have saw -7 or -8 under with Tiger or Phil as the winner.
I don’t. We only got the scoring we got because the greens were so soft. The course didn’t reward great ballstriking and it still closes off some of the preferred angles to certain hole locations with trees, pine straw, or rough.
Listen to Brandel Chamblee or even what I have to say in the podcast (tomorrow) about all this, but make no mistake about it: soft greens gave us the -12 scores, not a “better setup.”
You don’t think the set up was at least somewhat better than prior years? I didn’t see any photos comparing, but it appeared to me that the fairways were much wider. And green speeds are part of set up, and slower/softer greens help with scoring and help reward accurate ball striking. One of the knocks on Augusta has always been that you can have as little as one foot separating a perfect shot into a green and one that rolls off 50 feet from the hole into 4-putt territory. That is not necessarily a bad thing – it’s part of the challenge and charm of the course – but I think this feature of the course can transform from “challenging” to “silly” when the greens are too hard and/or fast.
I didn’t read any reports on the set up, if there were any, and I don’t know what the tournament committee had in mind. But for me, given the very windy conditions, I thought they did a great job of keeping the greens receptive, such that it didn’t turn into goofy golf.
I definitely agree with Erik that they have work to do in restoring the original character of the course with respect to the players having a wider choice of angles for approach shots. Mainly, they need to cut down some of the stupid tree plantings, which, I’ve heard, they are gradually doing. Or undoing, I guess you could say.
Now, I cannot argue they still have work to do, but that being said I still think there was a noticeable change in the setup from previous years that made the course more playable. I do not buy that rain softened greens were the only reason this years Masters wasn’t the march of attrition that provided the snore fests of past years. I think Augusta National finally heard the cry of “enough is enough” and backed off slightly. These are not the kind of men that are used to admitting they were wrong so returning the course completely to its previous form in one year is not going to happen.
I just can’t imagine Condi Rice part of the PGA. It’s image is so conservative already it would be doing it self a great disservice to bring Condi on board. Golf has become a world game. As such the PGA to survive needs to not only appear to be progressive it has to recognise the power sift that has happened in the game over the past 10 or so years. We are moving towards a world tour Condi’s reputation outside of USA is not good, it’s probably not that good inside the USA.
In my couple of years reading The Sand Trap, this is officially the dumbest and most assinine post I have ever read. Are you kidding me? I don’t have the time or patience to point out just how ridiculous your comment is, I will simply say this; you will have to explain to me how the PGA Tour could possibly pass up on a well known, highly regarded, experienced, intelligent, minority female like Condi Rice. She is as progessive as it gets, your liberal rhetoric has obviously rotted your brain.
They made some minor changes. The length of the first hole was shortened. Some of the tees were put forward. They thinned a few trees right on 11 (but didn’t remove them like they should) so “patrons” could see better.
I think your memory is failing you. I didn’t hear anyone say “wider fairways.” I could be wrong, too, but my memory indicates they weren’t any wider.
You didn’t listen to Brandel Chamblee, Nick Faldo, or Frank Nobilo enough… the green speeds seemed to be where they usually are. The green firmness was not, however, and soft greens don’t reward crisp ball-striking. Mickelson’s shot on 7 on Sunday shouldn’t have stayed on the green let alone nestled close and within five feet of his pitch mark.
Generally said to be 2-3 yards – let’s not exaggerate – but exactly. And I don’t think that’s a “knock” on Augusta – I think that’s what makes the course. The greens, and knowing the angles from which to best approach certain pins.
Rough and trees and, to some extent, added length help to force players away from being able to play the preferred angles.
So Augusta’s about two things: angles and control, and they were not available or absolutely necessary this year.
I’m not asking for rock-hard greens – but these were softer than the average PGA Tour event. They did nothing to separate crisp shots from so-so-shots. They did allow the score to be where people felt excited again, but Billy Payne can’t roll back 10 years of changes in one year, and so it’ll take him some time. I’m okay with soft greens if they’re an intermediary to get good scoring and excitement while the rest of the course slowly returns to the wider, angle-driven strategic course it once was.
On that last part we seem to partially agree (though I’ve not quoted your piece of it). Go back and watch some of the Masters tournaments from 2000-2005 or 2006 or so – before the two horrible weather years. See how the greens reacted then.
Erik:
I have this memory of the fairways looking really weird in the year Zach Johnson won. Narrowish “stripes” of fairway that seemed out of place with the lay of the land, let alone the fact that we in general almost never saw any distinction between fairway and “rough” at Augusta before. I thought this year, the second cut was quite a bit further from the center line than it was at least at some point in past years, although admittedly I may be remembering one particular year and not any trend in recent years.
I understand what you’re saying…I don’t know when Brandel Chamblee became an expert on course set up, but I understand the idea that if greens are soft enough, every decent shot will hold, as opposed to only the most crisply struck. But seriously, how sharp a point can you put on the pencil? Nick Faldo is a bit of a “prude”, so to speak, about ball-striking; are we supposed to believe he, or anyone, can define what a “crisp” shot is, as opposed to one that’s not quite perfectly crisp, as opposed to one that’s a hair fluffy? And if you can, can you be so precise with controlling the greens that you are sure you’re “rewarding ball striking?”
With the length added in recent years, the greens need to be a bit softer and receptive, as the average club and resulting trajectory of approach shots has changed. Restoring the ability to make birdies and eagles is nice, too.
Did anyone who played the course comment that the greens were softer than a typical PGA Tour event, or was that something Chamblee or Faldo said?
It will be nice when they finish eliminating the trees and restore some of the angle options. Maybe then, finally, we can see the course play the way it did years ago…maybe as far back as the 1960s. There were lots of great Masters in the last 15 years, but one thing I think all agree on is that with the distance increases of the 90s, and before the course was lengthened, alot of the “angle” advantage was already diminished by the fact that players were hitting shorter and shorter clubs into more and more of the greens.
Finally…are all the players using the new/modified grooves now?
I have to agree with NM Golf – the comment by David makes little sense. Ms. Rice is a woman and a person of color. Half the world is comprised of women and there are billions on non-whites (e.g. people of color) in the world. So Ms. Rice would be a nice fit for the PGA to expand. Plus she loves golf.
Additionally, I think, and this is my opinion, that David considers the word conservative to be a bad thing. Well the PGA donates millions to charity, helps kids learn the game and exercise, and requires self-reporting of rules infractions. So I am quite proud to have the word conservative associated with the PGA.
In a word, yes. I’m not anywhere near the level of a PGA Tour player, but I know when I’ve absolutely nutted a shot versus missing the sweet spot by an eighth or quarter of an inch. I’m absolutely certain that the degrees to which Nick Faldo or even Brandel Chamblee can determine “well struck” would likely astound the average scratch golfer.
To that end, I’ve watched a pro hit balls with some new drivers he was testing and rattle off his launch monitor numbers to within 0.1 degrees, 50 RPM, and 2 MPH ball speed on 10+ consecutive drives.
With the systems they have in those greens, yes, they can control them to that degree.
I don’t buy that. What was 3-iron in the 50s became a wedge for Tiger Woods, and they backed that off to perhaps a 7-iron for the average contestant. Overall players are still hitting less club in than in the 50s. They used to hit woods into the par fives, and they’re now hitting 5-irons – so no, I don’t buy that the greens need to be “softer” because players are hitting more club in. They’re not. The last real distance boom in golf was ~2000.
Both. You just have to be able to hear what they’re saying. One of the key words is “receptive.” Augusta greens shouldn’t be “receptive.” “Receptive” in PGA Tour-speak is “I can hit a shot, even somewhat poorly, and it’ll stick right there where it lands.”
If by “1990s” you mean “from 1997-1999,” then maybe, and even then it was really only by Tiger Woods and a select few others. The majority of the 90s saw a setup that was probably just fine and distances that were pretty normal. Pro V1 wasn’t introduced until after the end of 2000.
No. Most will switch in the off-season.
I still think you’re putting too fine a point on it (or Brandel and Nick are…) with respect to “rewarding ball striking,” Erik.
Of course a pro can rattle off their launch angle numbers. They are remarkably consistent, and they use the monitors to optimize themselves, etc. And even at my level I know the difference between a nutted shot and one a fraction in the toe or heel, or a whisker fat or thin. I’m not disputing that.
What I’m saying is, it’s not proven that there is any magic “x” amount of green softness that “rewards” ball striking in any significant or important way. No matter how much moisture you allow in the greens via the sub air, some shots will hold and others won’t, and you’re drawing an arbitrary line and deluding yourself if you think you can decide what the tipping point is for rewarding ball striking ability.
That kind of statement, from Faldo, is a “gestalt” type thing that sounds golf-intelligent and erudite, but in practice is sort of useless.
They could have made the greens much harder, and then if the wind kicked up significantly people would have been saying the set up was “silly.” All things being equal, the Masters likes to err on the side of more birdies, not less.
Historically, Masters greens have not always been at any given “classic” level of receptiveness. Before sub-air, some greens were hard and others soft. Augusta at one time had extremely hard greens, but this was because they needed to do this to have acceptable putting speeds with rye grass. One of the reasons for switching to bent was to allow them to make the greens more receptive to approach shots, while still allowing fast enough putting speeds to maintain the challenge.
I’m not saying I know the perfect way to set up the Masters, or that this year’s set up was perfect. I do know that the final score was a good one, and that if you played well, you could score well, most days. As for the greens being more receptive than a PGA Tour event, well, that may be true, I have no idea, but even if they were, they didn’t make the course easy. It’s not like there weren’t people going “high” as well as going low.
Nobody is happy, ever. Either things are set up too hard or too easy…
OK, you want to argue with a former PGA Tour player and a six-time major champ, you’re on your own, JP.
Of course it’s not “proven.” Nobody’s undergone a scientific test. But it’s well established, well known, and well understood that firmer greens reward better ball-striking. Phil’s duck hook from the trees on seven on Sunday should have not held like it did – he was out of position and didn’t deserve a tap-in birdie.
And I’m only citing Phil’s shot because it was one of the most glaring examples. I don’t profess to know exactly where the line for proper green softness lies, but it’s clear that they missed the line by a wide margin this go around.
Soft greens = band-aid to get the scoring they want while they slooooooooowly roll back some of the more egregious changes.
Why not? We do it all the time. Isn’t that the purpose of blogs and fan sites, to air opinions? Being an expert at playing a sport does not make one infallible or even necessarily right when it comes to understanding the science or physics of the sport. The sport of baseball has been turned upside down over the last 15 years by a bunch of nerds who call themselves sabermetricians. I doubt any of them could hit a 50 mph fastball, but the brave ones (like Bill James) were brave enough to stand up to the ridicule of “baseball men,” and James was eventually proven right, over and over.
It’s [i]thought[i] that firmer greens reward better ball striking, that’s all. It’s not “well established” or “well understood.” You can’t understand or establish something without firm evidence. Just like the baseball people scoffed at Bill James, modern golf people scoff at Dave Pelz. It is precisely the Pelz-type examination that is needed to “establish” the relationship between good ball striking and green speeds.
But I’d ask Faldo and Chamblee, what are your observations that lead you to conclude that firm greens reward better ball striking? Is it from the tower…and Nick sees someone he believes is a poor ball striker hit a shot that holds the green, and he assumes the green conditions helped the player? How does he know the player didn’t strike a good one there? To me, even in the absence of hard evidence, until someone gives me a good explanation for it, and some observations supporting it, it’s just golf lore. It’s not anything established, understood, or known.
I guess Seve didn’t “deserve” all the birdies he made from garbage cans and parking lots. You understand ball striking physics, Erik. To hit the hook recovery Phil hit there, chances are the shot was struck slightly toward the toe, and toe hits tend to be on the thin side. All of these things add spin to the shot. It was hit off pinestraw, I think (?), also permitting very clean contact and more spin. Another consideration is not merely the moisture of the green, but the slope where the ball pitched. I don’t care if you’re hitting to an asphalt green, if the green is canted severely toward you, the ball is not going to release forward, it’s going to back up. Maybe Phil’s ball landed on enough of an upslope to help it hold.
Sometimes the ball just holds. Golf isn’t perfect, and sometimes you get a good result and a good break from a bad position. To say he didn’t “deserve” a tap in is silly.
No argument, though, that they have more work to do to restore the course to the sort of thing Jones and Mackenzie wanted.
Thing is, we’re talking about the golf equivalent of hitting a 100 MPH or a major league curve ball. We’re not talking about the statistical side of golf. We’re talking about something about which the Nick Faldos of the world know quite a bit and the Bill James’ of the world know almost nothing.
No, it’s pretty well established and very well understood. I’m as aware as anyone that players can sometimes trick themselves into thinking certain things, but when everyone from Tiger Woods to Nick Faldo and Jack Nicklaus all say the same things, it’s highly unlikely they’re all fooling themselves.
These players – and even I – have gathered evidence by playing golf. The firmer the greens (to a point, after which they become a joke), the more demanding they are of the player’s ball-striking. On a really soft green, everything but the most bladed, skittering shot will stick where it lands, and we were far too close to that end of the spectrum at the 2009 Masters.
We’re not talking about green speeds, and the players have, with every round they’ve played, conducted research on their own behalf, perhaps the only way such research could realistically be carried out.
You can call for experimentation all you’d like, but the players have been witnessed the results every time they hit a ball on a green.
And they’d likely answer “10+ or 20+ years of playing top-tier caliber golf, of hitting golf shots to greens of varying firmness, with the complete absence of the opposite opinion being expressed by anyone of any stature.”
Now you’re comparing an apple to a grocery store’s worth of different fruits of all different shapes, sizes, etc.
Why are the “chances are” the ball be struck towards the toe? That doesn’t make any sense. The ball was probably struck on the sweet spot. The #2 player in the world hit it, and it went where he wanted, after all. The best way to control your ball is to hit the sweet spot.
That portion of the green was angled away from Phil, off the back slope of a front bunker.
You want scientific experimentation. I’m willing to take my own experiences as well as the experiences of those who’ve won major championships as the truth. We’ll have to agree to disagree here, because there’s nothing more to discuss.